The Conservative Case for WikiLeaks

Lovers necessarily keep or share secrets. Being in a healthy relationship means achieving a certain level of intimacy, where shared knowledge of each others’ weaknesses and insecurities is protected by a bond of mutual trust. Sometimes lovers might do devilish things that outsiders wouldn’t understand, or shouldn’t be privy to, and this is fine. But by and large, what they do is simply no one else’s business.

But imagine that the man in the relationship kept it a secret that he had other women on the side, kids, a criminal record, venereal disease, and basically betrayed his lover in every way imaginable, unbeknownst to her?

Now imagine a third party felt it was their moral duty to reveal it?

No one questions that governments must maintain a certain level of secrecy, including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who told Time that “Secrecy is important for many things … [but it] shouldn’t be used to cover up abuses.” The entire premise of Assange’s whistleblower organization is this: To what degree is government secrecy justified? And when particular secrets could be damaging to the other partner in the United States government’s relationship — the American people — should these secrets be revealed in the name of protecting the public?

How often does our government use “national security” simply as an excuse to cover up questionable dealings? Reports Time: “in the past few years, governments have designated so much information secret that you wonder whether they intend the time of day to be classified. The number of new secrets designated as such by the U.S. government has risen 75% … . At the same time, the number of documents and other communications created using those secrets has skyrocketed nearly 10 times…”

To say that government must keep secrets is not to say that all government secrets must be kept.

As admitted even by Pentagon officials and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, none of WikiLeaks’ revelations do anything to compromise national security or endanger American lives — but they have wreaked havoc on political life in Washington, D.C. Americans are not supposed to know, for example, that their government bullied and threatened individuals and other governments that might have undermined the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009. The federal government attempting to squelch anyone who might undermine global-warming dogma? Do WikiLeaks’ conservative critics believe revealing this is a “national security” risk?

Americans are not supposed to know, apparently, that behind the scenes Saudi Arabia has been encouraging the U.S. to take military action against Iran. But if we end up going to war with Iran shouldn’t it be in America’s national interest, and not simply as a subcontractor for another country? Asks Fox News’ Judith Miller: “Why should Americans not know that Arab states, often at the top level, have been urging Washington to take military or other drastic action against Iran, while they publicly oppose such action?”

And when did conservatives become so protective of Hillary Clinton? What happened to the days of the “Stop Hillary Express,” when right-wing talk radio portrayed the former first lady as Satan and theorized about all the devious ways in which, if in power, she might conspire to bring down the country? When WikiLeaks revealed that Secretary of State Clinton tried to obtain DNA, fingerprints, credit-card numbers, and other private information belonging to United Nations officials, we learned that Clinton’s style was every bit as mafia-esque as her conservative critics once warned. Yet conservatives now attack WikiLeaks for revealing what they once feared. It should also be remembered that the same conservatives now calling for Assange’s head either ignored or were sympathetic to Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame allegedly at the Bush administration’s behest — a revelation arguably far riskier to our national security than anything ever released by WikiLeaks.

But the worst hypocrisy throughout this controversy has been in conservatives reflexively defending the government and attacking WikiLeaks. Since when have conservatives believed that Washington should be able to shroud any action it likes in secrecy and that revealing government’s nefarious deeds is tantamount to treason? Isn’t it government officials who might secretly work for corporate, ideological or transnational interests — and against the national interest — who are betraying their country?

Interestingly, Wikileaks’ founder espouses the traditionally conservative, Jeffersonian view that America’s constitutional structure limits and lessens government corruption. Reported Time: “Assange appears to believe that the U.S. has not become ‘a much-worse-behaved superpower’ because its federalism, ‘this strength of the states,’ has been a drag on the combination of the burgeoning power of the central government and a presidency that can expand its influence only by way of foreign affairs.”

Decentralizing government power, limiting it, and challenging it was the Founders’ intent and these have always been core conservative principles. Conservatives should prefer an explosion of whistleblower groups like WikiLeaks to a federal government powerful enough to take them down. Government officials who now attack WikLleaks don’t fear national endangerment, they fear personal embarrassment. And while scores of conservatives have long promised to undermine or challenge the current monstrosity in Washington, D.C., it is now an organization not recognizably conservative that best undermines the political establishment and challenges its very foundations.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 64 comments

64 Responses to The Conservative Case for WikiLeaks

Since the first of Bush2’s admins, I have become more involved in listening to a true conservatives point of view, and you Mr Hunter seem to be that.
Reading Justin Raimondo, Patrick Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others, I have found myself in agreement with much of what I read. This is a surprise to me as I have been a Democrat for many years, yet I am a citizen first, and my opinion only one, yet this opinion is kept more informed, by my own research, since the invasion of Iraq, of which I did not really think could happen. I am not naive, I just looked at the situation and thought it was a waste and a silly idea.
This was case in point that Bush2 was no conservative, and that the conservative gentlemen that I found myself reading, and in agreement with were exactly that.
Thank you for this article, I will make a small donation in your name as well as the others mentioned. If I can give Kiva twenty five dollars I can give The American Conservative, as well as Antiwar.com the same, were that it could be more.

The neo-conservative wing of the republican party while wishing to claim to be conservative, is the child of American Liberalism, which itself has almost no relation to either classical Liberalism (Libertarianism) or modern Liberalism in other countries (read Libertarian social policy, fiscally in favour of taxes, in favour of centralisation). American Liberalism is closer to Communism, because it wants to export its political values to other countries. It goal is not to provide freedom to the people but to “free” the oppressed, where it defines who is oppressed (Israel et. al). The conservative approach would be to either not worry about the oppressed, worry but not invade them, or invade them for profit. Fundamentally the divide is whether we make others our concern, or ourselves our concern.

A Swedish judge in the historically sexually free Sweden, has thought to stop Julian and ask that he explain why two women are upset with him as he tries to take his info empire to the next level.

Julian’s alleged behavior, if true, with two women would indicated that personally he favors convenient secrets to avoid embarrassment and a frustration of personal ambition and, if true, would indicate that conspiracies can live within the heart of one person who doesn’t like conspiracies among others, a form of narcissitic orientation that cares little for others close to him. Such double dealing for the benefit of one of them sounds more sinister than most of the State Dept cables that I have read about. Should such inconsistencies, misleadings, lies, half-truths, not the whole truth be exposed to the light of day for all to know who it is “we” are following into the glorious light of international transparency?

Furthermore, what kind of whistle-blowing protections shall be offered to any soul found to be the source of spreading state secrets that are a form of confidentiality between persons who happen to be diplomats, that which we all hope is maintained by our personal counselors and confessors. Do we want our private confessions nailed to the Whittenberg Door.

One should keep private matters private unless a huge moral problem hidden is a danger potentially hurting others. It seems the State Dept has been publically consistent with its private dealings as best that can be translated. Maybe for the START talks, the NY Times headline should read that President Obama met with Batman and Robin. Would that make everyone feel more comfortable with their government and celebating transparency?

Many conservatives are staunchly opposed to wikileaks and its acts of publishing the diplomatic cables and war logs. But I am at a loss to understand why. These same conservatives want a smaller, less powerful government that minimally interferes in the affairs of others, a transparent government that is more accountable for their actions. But the same conservatives are the first to leap to the defense of the embarrassed big government! Isn’t this what the “leftists” should be doing in the conservative world-view?

This is all so deliciously amusing.

Where is the Tea Party?

These conservatives have revealed themselves to hypocrites. They are internally inconsistent. They used to claim they were all for freedom of information and government transparency until this all happened. They used to claim that the liberals were defenders of a big opaque unaccountable government. That is what the conservatives are defending now.

It seems to me that these conservatives are supporters of big unaccountable governments, provided that these governments are pushing a neo-conservative agenda. Their double-speak has caught up with them in the most embarrassing way.

So what do conservatives really stand for? It really seems to be as simple as this: inertia. They just don’t want their world to go through rapid changes. They don’t want to change their viewpoints, as they are forced to when drastic changes like this occur. They abandon their ideology which they normally defend with a religious fervour when quick changes occur in the order of things.

I’ve generally held my nose and voted bluish unless a clearly competent Red guy (you know, the old kind that actually realized that Blue guys were his constituents too) was up for my vote. Over the years I continue to appreciate the clarity and intellectual integrity of Am. Con. This piece is DEAD ON!!!! and it points to the need of us regular folks to realign based on issues, not parties and this is THE ISSUE!!! Possibly of similar magnitude to the role of the printing press in Colonial days. The powers of the day (The King of Of England, The Bank Of England, wealthy aristocrat land holders, etc. were just as opposed to the dissemination of unfavorable information then. Again thanks, Am. Con. and I’m sending this link to some of my friends who lean left!!

All the attention in this case has been directed at what Wikileaks has done, and whether or not it is good or bad.

The real issue is that an Army private who was an intelligence analyst with top secret clearance committed acts of treason by leaking secret U.S. intelligence documents to a foreign blogger.

It doesn’t matter that many believe the information should have been made public, or that the government should not keep certain materials secret, or that the government ought not to be practicing the type of activity which was leaked.

It is not a good defense in a murder case to say that the victim was really an undesirable person anyway.

Bradley Manning should be prosecuted to the maximum allowable by law. If he were to receive a life sentence, or at least a very long period of incarceration, then that would discourage others who believe that they are above the law.

All you have said in your entire post is that what Bradley Manning and wikileaks did is probably very illegal, according to the “offended party” that wrote those laws in the first place. Big whoop.

Mr. Hunter’s article was not about legality, but morality. Do try not to confuse the two. Unless, of course, you believe that whatever the law says is wrong is also immoral. Or perhaps you simply believe that obededience to the law equals freedom. Or is that obedience to the state (which wrote the law) equals freedom?

Leaving aside the argument of who Assange is and what his intentions are, just look at the effect of his actions: they threaten to up-end the homeostasis of an unaccountable, insane national (and international) system of governance; that is to say, seriously corrupt power structures that are depriving people with relative impunity of various rights and freedoms, including their lives.

Just like the child of an alcoholic parent gets labeled as the identified patient and vilified for outing his addicted, wife-abusing father (with everybody in his reality-denying family–including his mother and physically abused siblings–loathing, attacking and recriminating him), Assange is being scapegoated for telling the truth and outing the total hypocrisy of the US government. He also appears to have in his crosshairs the banksters, conglomerates, the fed, various foreign governments, and the UN.

No wonder hate is raining down on him. One wonders if Assange bit off far, far more than any mortal can chew. Said differently, I wonder how he is able to withstand the psychological pressure of having virtually everybody in power wishing for his demise.

To be sure, secrets have their place, but on the whole, we must confess that this iconoclastic guy may just be what we need to shake it all up so we can regroup at a higher level of functioning. Arguably, this man is a (if not the) central player of our times (judged by what might result from his actions), and if he’s an admixture of “good and bad”, then that should be no surprise. Welcome to reality. Purity and/or perfection has no place on this physical plane. It’s all just a bunch of crosscurrents acting on one another to move the drama of life forward.

As a former conservative I find it fascinating that a piece such as this appears in an outlet that self identifies as conservative.

Conservatives of this stripe would have us forget that it was conservatives who opposed ending slavery, who opposed child labor laws, women’t suffrage, and civil rights, and who most strongly supported the Vietnam War.

And it was conservatives who favored our toppling democracies in places like Guatemala, Iran and Chile. It was also conservatives who were the staunchest supporters of the criminal, “COINTELPRO” activities of the FBI, and J. Edgar Hoover’s other Police State practices. It was conservatives who backed the commie witch hunts of “Tailgunner” Joe McCarthy, just as they’ve eagerly joined in calling any dissent “pro-terrorist,” and any dissenter a “pro-terrorist.”

But you’ve got to give them one thing: conservatives have been utterly, preposterously consistent: they are adamant that the govt. cant be trusted to run a welfare state, or even help the poor and afflicted, but it can be completely trusted to run a Police State.

All you “conservatives” who resonate with this article need to realize that you’re really liberals at heart.

What you have to understand is that, in modern America, “conservative” is just a re-branded way to say “Republican”. You can argue this until you’re blue in the face, but the truth of it is exposed in precisely the way this article points out — so-called “conservatives” who care not one whit about limited government, but only in defending the Republican Party and its views. All of those who would have called themselves Republicans prior to the miserable reign of Bush now call themselves Conservatives because that failure of a decade so thoroughly tarnished the Republican brand.

And so it is that you have “conservatives” who defend a police state with totalitarian powers and innumerable state secrets that allow it and and its agents to escape accountability to the people. They believe that the US Constitution applies only to those they want it to apply to, and they believe that big government is great as long as it is a big government that imposes Christian theocracy on the people. They say that the government is incompetent and incapable of doing anything right while simultaneously declaring that the military (the largest arm of the government) is absolutely infallible and correct and pure in everything it does. They decry “liberal fascism” while calling for the execution of a man who simply revealed the naked truth of the government’s dealings — they desire the end of the man who so starkly provides the “transparancy” they are always complaining about a lack of.

The vast majority of those that call themselves ‘conservative’ actually want a huge, centralized government. They just want to make sure it does what they want it to do. They are simply Republicans that have succeeded at re-branding themselves.